Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jon Lech Johansen <jon@××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] avifile ebuild requires divx4linux and win32codecs on x86
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:49:45
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 07:23:52AM +0200, Tony Clark (tclark@×××××.com) wrote:
> These are 2 different things. > 1. Copywrite has been claimed. > 2. The copywrite holder has the right to determine if and how any > reproduction can be made. > No argument with either of these, except where an included license conflicted > with other laws of the land in question. In Australia you can region code a > DVD all you want but I believe now, you are not allowed to sell a dvd player > that supports region coding. Australia's fair use laws override parts of the > license pertaining to region coding thus rendering region coding illegal in > priciple there. Australia is a member of both bodies you mentioned below.
Region coding is not covered by any WIPO treaties or conventions which Australia is a signatory to. A quick search did not reveal any news articles supporting your view that region coding is currently illegal in Australia, only that it's being (or was) investigated by the ACCC as a possible violation of the Trade Practices Act (not fair use laws): Anyway, how is this relevant to the win32 codecs distribution issue?
> Both the WIPO and Berne convention leave a number of things to be determined > by members. eg "Mod chips" can be sold, purchased and used legally in > Australia, in the USA and UK selling such devices is illegal. In the USA > using such a device is illegal. Don't know about the UK.
Mod chips are not covered by any WIPO treaties or conventions which Australia is a signatory to. Circumvention devices are covered by the WIPO Copyright Treaty. WCT is the basis for EUCD, which the UK has not yet implemented: The law applied in Sony v. Channel Technology was Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. I don't see how this is relevant either.
> I had a quick read of the Berne Convention and I didn't notice anything that > supports your view on "Requiring copywrite..." I didn't read it all, just > the articals that I thought may include such a statement, so could you point > me to the relevant artical.
Article 5(2).
> > How about a "css" USE keyword for closed source software? > Why? It doesn't address anything technical, just a personal perference maybe.
Doesn't address anything technical? We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
> I do know where your coming from and you have my support on that issue. I > believe where legal areas are grey, it's better to not to emphesise them by > bringing special notice to the fact they are grey. This only makes people > want to seek black or white clarification which is nice if it concludes that > what your doing is ok but hell and undefendable if it isn't.
I haven't pointed out any grey areas. What are you talking about? The legal issue at hand is very simple: The mplayer project (and Gentoo mirrors) is distributing win32 codecs which are copyrighted by Microsoft, Apple and others. Which license agreements permit this distribution? -- Jon Lech Johansen jon@××××××××××.org Stat sua cuique dies, breve et inreparabile tempus omnibus est vitae; sed famam extendere factis, hoc virtutis opus. -- gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list